Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

I totally agree. I know people sorta treat gaming in general as just sorta like a geeky side-hobby, but, gaming's pretty sophisticated nowadays, and tabletop gaming always was sophisticated and required teamwork and problem solving. Modern games tend to focus on small teams... 4, 5 people on a team. It's much more about teamwork than about what you do as an individual in so many games. Much like the things people are always saying are virtues gained out of playing a sport.

In fact I'm sure even the non-gamers here have probably heard the reputation that Koreans and Asians in general have as being like... "ridiculously good at gaming." Of course in some regards it's a stereotype and it's not universally true in every type of game. However, one game dev who had designed games both for US and Asian market releases had a comment about the playtesting process and the differences he noticed in reactions to game design between the two markets.

Americans were much more resistant to the notion of needing others to accomplish a goal together... and would avoid doing it unless it was absolutely necessary.

By comparison, Asians culturally had a much friendlier grasp of a collectivist sort of approach.

I'm sure he took some heat for saying that, but I also think you could probably get many or most American gamers to agree if you asked them-- Americans hate working together, and generally are stubborn and difficult about it. If it's at all possible for them to do something solo instead, they'll generally prefer to do it that way. Even if it decreases the chances of the team winning, or hurts the team overall.

Well, that's what decades of fear mongering against "Communism" and "socialism" get you - a nation too afraid to be branded socialist if it actually pulled resources to fix a problem.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

He's right to ignore it. There's been multiple studies done to conclude that violence in media like movies or video games does not result in violence in real life. Its something that was brought up by the NRA to try and cover up any responsibility they might have, and distract from the real issues.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Just_Believe18

chance, you have correlation, but not causation. The fact is all American films are exported to global film markets in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. and none of them even come close to the mass shooting gun violence we have here in the United States. Pick a different symptom. You're not scoring points here.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by chance1

Scoring points is not the goal

But thanks

As for violence in films and videogames

It has impact and is worthy of debate

Just as arming a school security guard does

Convos don't end because you're not in agreement

But you didn't even list an impact to qualify the debate. You can make an assumption that a violent form of media somehow influences people to be violent, but you need to provide a warrant to justify causation. I provided you a very specific example of how violent movies (and video games for that matter) are exported around the world, and there's not a single industrialized country that even comes close to the amount of mass shootings and gun violence that we have here in the United States.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

The problem with quoting studies is that there are always contrary studies. It really comes down to where and from whom the "study" researchers are receiving financing. As a rule, when one finances a study, poll or survey, they have a vested interest as to the outcome. I personally cannot think of one instance of a study being financed by a certain group or individual that didn't eventually say what the financier wanted.

While I do not think graphic violence in video games or movies or TV, is solely responsible for an increase in violence in society it is a statistical improbability that it has no effect whatsoever. To blindly accept a celebrity's assertion that it just isn't simply because they say so is naive at best.

I do not find Mr. Tarantino's work entertaining in the least. It is very often poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed and poorly produced.

Instead of asking him about violence in film, maybe the interviewer should have been asking him why his movies are so horrible.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

I found Django Unchained to be one of Tarantino's better films - quite enjoyed it. Personally, I think his films would actually be better, and reach a wider audience, if he toned down the violence. But, they are what they are.

Meanwhile, I haven't been motivated to go on a shooting spree since seeing it.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Durango95

The problem with quoting studies is that there are always contrary studies. It really comes down to where and from whom the "study" researchers are receiving financing. As a rule, when one finances a study, poll or survey, they have a vested interest as to the outcome. I personally cannot think of one instance of a study being financed by a certain group or individual that didn't eventually say what the financier wanted.

While I do not think graphic violence in video games or movies or TV, is solely responsible for an increase in violence in society it is a statistical improbability that it has no effect whatsoever. To blindly accept a celebrity's assertion that it just isn't simply because they say so is naive at best.

I do not find Mr. Tarantino's work entertaining in the least. It is very often poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed and poorly produced.

Instead of asking him about violence in film, maybe the interviewer should have been asking him why his movies are so horrible.

It's a monumentally stupid thing to blame first before the fact that mentally unstable people have incredibly easy access to firearms.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Movies show all sides while ad's are always one sided sugar-coated messages only intended for you to buy the product.

It would be horrible if scripted material for entertainment and art could not show things real life has like smoking, sex, violence, doing drugs, etc... Artistic freedom should be considered a part of freedom of speech and expression.

Despite the media always focusing on the bad we are actually living in one of the most peaceful times in the history of mankind. For example honor killing was at one point almost a part of every culture on the planet... before the days of television.

1. Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
2. New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
3. Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
4. Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
5. Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
6. United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
7. Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
8. United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
9. Netherlands: 79.5779 per 1,000 people
10. South Africa: 77.1862 per 1,000 people"

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Durango95

What blame? There was no blame. [Text: Removed]

Criminals have incredibly easy access to guns too. Limiting the access to guns for law abiding citizens will not reduce the accessibility to criminals.

[Text: Removed]

Almost none of the public spree shooters had a criminal record prior to what they did.

They were "law abiding gun owners."

I don't buy into this notion that there's two distinct camps of criminals and law abiding gun owners because it's friggin myth. People snap, people develop mental problems, or people go buy a gun in the heat of a moment or when under psychological duress-- that's the whole reasoning for any form of wait periods in the first place, so that you can't go buy a gun right after your wife gets full custody of the kids or whatever else.

Long story short: crazy ass people in this country sit on a pile of guns and eventually go do something with them. Up until the moment they do they were in your "law abiding citizen" category. Then they joined the criminal category after it was too late to do anything about it.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Man that movie was a great piece of art. It thoroughly demonstrates that slavery was a blight we have yet to have shaken off. The horrors we treated other human beings to in the name of a Christian bible. The people then perverted the word to their needs just as the zealots now pervert the Constitution and the biblical word to support their oppressive views of America.

So yes Jack i can see why QT didnt want to take on your entire party about how demented and misguided their ideas are and how well they compare to the ills given mankind from slavery.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by MattClaimer

Of course he won't, because he knows it would publicly out him as a hypocrite. Wouldn't piss on him or Jamie Foxx if they were on fire and begging.

A hypocrite about what?

I'm sorry but it's so lazy to take the attitude of "anyone who's ever thought about, seen, watched or made fiction about any violent situation ever has sacrificed any right to say they disapprove of real-life violence."

I've written short stories, many of them have some levels of violence in them, I now cannot criticize public spree shootings? That would make me a 'hypocrite'?

This reasoning is broken. It implies parallelism between fiction and reality or a complete dismissal of any distinction. I'm a hypocrite if I murder people and then condemn murder. Not if I write a short story where someone gets murdered and say I disapprove of murder. Please let's get real.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

If violent behavior in movies and on tv doesn't encourage violence -- would it be ok to bring back cigarette smoking on tv in shows and ads?

I think that's a very good comparison.

It's a false comparison: everyone knows that movies are fiction, but cigaret commercials are making claims about real life.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

We're talking about gun violence, sugar.

No, we're not -- we're talking about violence, according to the thread title. It's quite legitimate to point out a general increase in violence, especially when it's not uncommon for violent crime other than with guns to increase when guns are highly restricted.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by mitchymo

And there is another thing worth noting. The US has the worlds highest prison population per capita, by a country mile, than other countries. So the US is protecting itself from a mighty huge figure of 'petty crime' at least. The idea that guns are having an impact on crime for the better, not the worse, is as flimsy as Quentin Crisps wrist.

The US is also subsidizing violent crime by keeping the price of drugs artificially high, thus offering the opportunity for immense profit as well as an incentive to shoot competitors and prey on the innocent.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

I've said before in CEP that mental health was the problem. Violence in TV, movies, and games stirs people with weak will and mental illness to act upon their desires.

I do know that visuals stimulate the human mind -- look at pornography -- we watch it to get excited about having sex. Most people just jack off or have sex with a partner. Then, there are those that take it to the extreme and the porno excites them to do horrible acts of sex abuse and even murder.

I think it's hypocritical to isolate 'the arts' from the discussion and cause of violence. However, I can understand how elitists cannot see the connection.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

I've said before in CEP that mental health was the problem. Violence in TV, movies, and games stirs people with weak will and mental illness to act upon their desires.

I do know that visuals stimulate the human mind -- look at pornography -- we watch it to get excited about having sex. Most people just jack off or have sex with a partner. Then, there are those that take it to the extreme and the porno excites them to do horrible acts of sex abuse and even murder.

I think it's hypocritical to isolate 'the arts' from the discussion and cause of violence. However, I can understand how elitists cannot see the connection.

How about all the ones who already have those urges and get relief from watching porn or violent movies?

I can't rule out that this type of material might be increasing the likelihood of violence acts or sexual abuse for some.

But at the same time I can't rule out that it might actually decrease the likelihood for others.

You can easily find studies with both of these results so it's far from being a certain thing whether the negatives or positives are stronger.

Today we have media which is obsessed about covering the negative to get more viewers. Although it might appear that things are just getting worse and worse, again, we are still living in one of the most peaceful times of human history.

I'm not sure what the experience is in other countries but I'm pretty sure youth violence is less severe now than it was decades ago. My grandfather used to shake his head over the news coverage claiming it was much worse when he was a boy and young boys were already fighting on a level you only see with teens today.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

The thing I don't get is why is Tarantino supposed to be some sort of expert on violence in media. He is a B lister at an imagined best. (I've being very generous.) He's in actuality a possible C but a good solid D.

He is input is irrelevant. He makes gratuitously violent B movies. (Again I'm being generous.)

When you think about it the APA estimates that 2% of the general population exhibit sociopath tendencies. Most of these people are lonely miserable socially inept folks. They don't have violent tendencies. These are the usual weird cousin or the cat lady next door or the old cantankerous fart down the street with the "keep off grass" signs on his front lawn. Do some of these very people play violent video games? It is quite possible.

Then there are those that exhibit violent tendencies. These people have a pathology which is very disturbing. They start to collect violent imagery whether it be movies, news clips, pictures, youtube screen caps and books about murderers. Sometimes these people are overt in their tendencies. They act out publicly. They get in trouble with juvenile authorities more often than not. These are probably the only ones that can be identified early enough to do something about it. Do these people play violent video games? It is quite probable.

Those that just sit a home and simmer are the problems. If these people never act out, never get in trouble, never demonstrate violent behavior, or never vocalize threats, how are they to be identified.

Therein lies the rub. I agree that mental illness is a problem. I am just wary of how to identify potential problems.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Durango95

The thing I don't get is why is Tarantino supposed to be some sort of expert on violence in media. He is a B lister at an imagined best. (I've being very generous.) He's in actuality a possible C but a good solid D.

He is input is irrelevant. He makes gratuitously violent B movies. (Again I'm being generous.)

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

I've said before in CEP that mental health was the problem. Violence in TV, movies, and games stirs people with weak will and mental illness to act upon their desires.

I do know that visuals stimulate the human mind -- look at pornography -- we watch it to get excited about having sex. Most people just jack off or have sex with a partner. Then, there are those that take it to the extreme and the porno excites them to do horrible acts of sex abuse and even murder.

I think it's hypocritical to isolate 'the arts' from the discussion and cause of violence. However, I can understand how elitists cannot see the connection.

Jack this is supposition. Studies don't bear out any connection on the individual level between exposure to violent entertainment and likelihood to personally carry out violence. If we accept that violent entertainment prompts even some small percentage of people to mindlessly repeat what they saw in movies or videogames in real life, then we are still left with the mystery of why every nation with a ridiculously low crime rate and almost no public murder spree record to speak of still watches these movies and plays these videogames. Japan, for example.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Durango95

The thing I don't get is why is Tarantino supposed to be some sort of expert on violence in media. He is a B lister at an imagined best. (I've being very generous.) He's in actuality a possible C but a good solid D.

He is input is irrelevant. He makes gratuitously violent B movies. (Again I'm being generous.)

When you think about it the APA estimates that 2% of the general population exhibit sociopath tendencies. Most of these people are lonely miserable socially inept folks. They don't have violent tendencies. These are the usual weird cousin or the cat lady next door or the old cantankerous fart down the street with the "keep off grass" signs on his front lawn. Do some of these very people play violent video games? It is quite possible.

Then there are those that exhibit violent tendencies. These people have a pathology which is very disturbing. They start to collect violent imagery whether it be movies, news clips, pictures, youtube screen caps and books about murderers. Sometimes these people are overt in their tendencies. They act out publicly. They get in trouble with juvenile authorities more often than not. These are probably the only ones that can be identified early enough to do something about it. Do these people play violent video games? It is quite probable.

Those that just sit a home and simmer are the problems. If these people never act out, never get in trouble, never demonstrate violent behavior, or never vocalize threats, how are they to be identified.

Therein lies the rub. I agree that mental illness is a problem. I am just wary of how to identify potential problems.

B movies... I bet you would suck a dick for a tenth of his B paycheck for those B movies... lol...

Forget the thread ... Someone doesnt like QT movies... its on Bitch!!!

jk

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

I've said before in CEP that mental health was the problem. Violence in TV, movies, and games stirs people with weak will and mental illness to act upon their desires.

I do know that visuals stimulate the human mind -- look at pornography -- we watch it to get excited about having sex. Most people just jack off or have sex with a partner. Then, there are those that take it to the extreme and the porno excites them to do horrible acts of sex abuse and even murder.

I think it's hypocritical to isolate 'the arts' from the discussion and cause of violence. However, I can understand how elitists cannot see the connection.

Just how would you go about 'fixing' this without penalizing the innocent as a gamble to inhibit the guilty?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

I do like your stating your opinion. No matter how deranged it appears among the rest of us. So besides good wholesome violence what is your 'cinema' that you enjoy... give us an example of good please.

I will warn you though... so you can judge my opinions... I think Pulp Fiction is quite possibly the most impressive theater experience of my lifetime. It is uniquely original and has spawned an entire generation of movies. My days aren't over by a long shot but I will be surprised if something eclipses that movie in effective change for the industry.

QT's movies are very violent and therefore the perfect artistic rendering of America.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by JayHawk

I do like your stating your opinion. No matter how deranged it appears among the rest of us. So besides good wholesome violence what is your 'cinema' that you enjoy... give us an example of good please.

I will warn you though... so you can judge my opinions... I think Pulp Fiction is quite possibly the most impressive theater experience of my lifetime. It is uniquely original and has spawned an entire generation of movies. My days aren't over by a long shot but I will be surprised if something eclipses that movie in effective change for the industry.

QT's movies are very violent and therefore the perfect artistic rendering of America.

I interpret your comment about my opinion to mean I'm not a little pink sheeple like most of the guys on this forum. I've only been back on here a few days after years. I just got tired of the groupthink which seems to be pandemic in many gay venues. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Pulp Fiction is one of those "things" that a lot of people "say" they like because there is a perception that making such a statement identifies them as cool. I have to admit I too have succumbed to the same thing when I was younger. I'm too old to give a flying rat's ass what anyone thinks now.

I suppose the most recent actually good film I have seen is "The King's Speech". I consider a good film to be one that you could watch again and again and get a little something more each time.

A bad movie is one that you have to suffer through just because you've paid money to see it. There are bad movies that are still fun, Rocky Horror Picture Show or Killer Clowns from Outer Space fall into this category. Those are the movies that are so bad you have to sit through it just to make fun of it.

Re: Quentin Tarantino will not answer questions about movie violence impact on society

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

And what's the so called "group think"? Many of us hardly agree with each other on a variety of issues. Just take a look at the rest of threads on here. And asides from that, I am not even a fan of Tarantino. But I don't think his movies are crap.

There really does seem to be a pervading groupthink on many of the gay forums. I'm not naive enough to believe that there is a forum free from an agenda in the worst case scenario or a point of view in the best case scenario. Everyone has a particular bent. I know that from this forum because my posts are routinely ignored and not posted.

I don't particularly care for Mr. Tarantino's type work. If others do that is fine. That is why there is variety in media.

The original point of the thread was to address the issue of whether or not Mr. Tarantino is qualified to speak to the psychological impact of the violent content of his movies on society as a whole. I do not think he is. He is not a psychiatrist.